Make Room For Compassionate Conservatism

January 09, 2001|By JOHN M. HORAK John M. Horak is a Hartford attorney who represents many nonprofit organizations, and is a director of the Yankee Institute for Public Policy, based at Trinity College.

`Compassionate conservatism'' is the name George W. Bush has given to the principles that will guide his administration's social welfare policies.

His opponents on the political left have attempted to discredit this idea, cynically stating that ``compassionate conservatism'' is an oxymoron. Contrary to the comments of these critics, compassionate conservatism is an idea whose time has come, and it dovetails nicely with recent developments in the world of philanthropic organizations.

FOR THE RECORD - Correction was published Thursday Janaury 11, 2001 on Page A11.The Yankee Institute for Public Policy, which is based in Hartford, is not affiliated with Trinity College. The editor's note that accompanied the Jan. 9 Other Opinion article ``Make Room For Compassionate Conservatism'' may have created the impression that the institute is connected to the school.

Stated simply, compassionate conservatism calls for devolving a reasonable degree of responsibility for managing social problems to private charitable organizations, specifically including those which are ``faith based.''

Mr. Bush has suggested doing this through various mechanisms -- such as direct governmental grants to qualifying charities -- and tax code changes to encourage private charitable contributions.

The philosophical underpinnings of compassionate conservatism are twofold. The first is the concept of ``subsidiarity'' -- the rule that problems are best solved in the subsystem in which they arise without interference or intervention by a higher authority.

The Manhattan Institute's John J. Dilulio articulated this in a 1999 Weekly Standard article. In this context, he defined subsidiarity as pushing down responsibility and authority for these matters to the nuclear family and to ``larger communities'' proximate to the families in need such as churches and local charitable organizations.

Dilulio does not suggest that government does not have a role to play -- but does suggest that we are likely to get a better return on our efforts if we push down the resources and responsibility for these problems to the lowest level possible, and institute some competition with and within governmental social-welfare bureaucracies.

The second philosophical element recognizes that religion has a vital, perhaps necessary, role to play in addressing the problems of which we speak: poverty, crime, addiction, etc. This is the more controversial of the two elements, knotted as it is in the murky depths of First Amendment jurisprudence.

Obviously, these new ideas emphasize and enhance the role of private charitable organizations. In this regard it is important that the public understand the unique role of the philanthropic sector in American culture.

The philanthropic sector is comprised of so-called ``intermediate'' institutions -- a term most easily defined by highlighting what it is not. It is not the government -- which exists for the common welfare and benefit and is elected by and answerable to the public. Nor is it the private sector -- which exists to make profits and supply resources to it proprietors.

It is halfway between the government and the private sector in that it exists to benefit the public (like the governmental sector), yet is governed by the private interests which supply its funding and sit on its governing boards.

From my perspective this means that the charitable sector has the potential to utilize the best of both worlds -- looking out benevolently for the well-being of the community generally, while realizing the efficiencies that can come with private direction and control.

More important, a relatively recent development in the charitable sector -- venture philanthropy -- is very much in tune with the president-elect's ideas. Venture philanthropy is the belief among some philanthropists that the principles that guide for-profit venture capital investments (such as risk management, performance measures and exit strategies) can be used to guide grant-making decisions and foundation management.

This notion is very similar to the thoughts Dilulio expressed in his 1999 article to the effect that opening up the social-welfare field could usher in a new era of ``results-driven'' administration with people ``rewarded according to whether they and their proxies actually received positive results (safer, healthier, better-housed kids, clean and sober former addicts, ex-welfare moms with steady jobs), not whether they pushed relevant papers, obeyed perverse regulations, or supervised bigger staffs.''

Finally, a word is in order about the role of faith-based organizations. While I realize that we live in an era of great scientific advances in engineering, medicine and biology, I also think we are fooling ourselves if we don't recognize the fact that the problems of which we speak have a component that we'll never be able to dissect under a microscope.

Those opponents of compassionate conservatism who wear a First Amendment talisman around its neck, and go apoplectic whenever God's name is mentioned in the context of public policy, should, as the saying goes, take a long time out. It may be worth the wait to see if God can do a better job than government in managing these affairs.

Compassionate conservatism is not an oxymoron, and religion has a place in public life. In fact, compassionate conservatism is just the type of thing which, when interwoven properly with the philanthropic sector, could yield a whole greater than the sum of the parts.